Feminism and religion: discuss

[tabouleh]

There was some interest in discussing Feminism and religion on the "intro" thread.

I think it would be very lovely if that thread is pretty much kept to intros and light hearted banter.

So I thought I would start this thread to discuss religion.

I will copy some info I quoted on the other thread which is from the "Reclaiming the F Word" book:

Apparently feminists of the second wave who worked on religion fell into four groups: religious reformists, religious revisionists, spiritual revolutionaries and secular feminists.

So which are you?

I don't know much about religion. I was brought up CofE and have rebelled against it and find it just unpleasant so haven't thought about religion since. I don't know if I am a theist or not but I know i'm not religion and I think that too many heinous crimes have been committed in the name of religion for it to be a part of my life.

typo - religious

Religious reformists are liberals; they seek equal opportunities for women and men within religious traditions. They don't want to revolutionside styles of worship, reject sacred texts or change the gender of deities. But they believe religious texts and doctrines have been misinterpreted in a way that disadvantages women, hindering their participation in religion and its leadership strutures.

Religious revisionists believe that expanding women's roles within the existing structures is not enough. They look for a liberating core within their religion, reject the rest, and believe a deeper transformation is required, of religious structures and society. They believed religious texts should not be imbibed unquestioningly but should be examined through the lens of women's experiences: "women's experiences" becomes the norm or onw of the norms by which the adequecy of the theology is to be judged.

Spiritual revolutionaries are highly critical of institutional religion, and reject religion in its conventional forms. Often distinguishing religion (which they dislike) from spirituality, they create women-centred experiences that re-establish feminity's sanctity.

Secular feminists include those who want to separate religion from the state, and those who have abandoned religion and spirituality completely. For the latter group religious texts and practices are not relevant and will harm women who continue with them.

Quoted from Reclaiming the F Word.

I guess I am a secular feminist and I'd like to see religion separate from the state.

I wouldn't like to go so far as to proclaim that religion will harm women etc as I don't believe I know enough about it.

Secular feminist - that's me then!

My grandma is very sexist because of religion

I don't have much of an opinion of it because I have pretty much turned away from organised religion...it is mostly just organised religion that has an anti-woman perception, isn't it? I mean, paganism definitely doesn't, and neither does the sort of spirituality that many people who feel uncomfortable with absolute atheism create for themselves - people who don't believe in a higher power, but do believe in 'something'.

I would like to see religion as separate from the state, though, so even though I'm not an atheist, I guess I'd have to say I'm a secular feminist!

Hmm. Interesting. I'm not very religious myself, although I have been becoming more drawn towards the Christian church in the last couple of years. One of the things that puts me off, however, is the lack of women in the church generally - it all seems to be very unfeminist. But I don't know how much of that is due to Christianity developing in a very male-oriented society, or whether the religion itself is fundamentally flawed when it comes to women.

I guess out of the labels above I'd probably describe myself as a religious reformist, although to be honest I'm not sure that I know enough about either Christianity or feminism to qualify to talk on the subject...

I would say I'm option 1.

I am very much for the separation of church and state though - they are very distinct institutions and should kept as such. Also, as I am not an adherent of the majority religion, it serves me very well - as long as the state keeps its nose out of my religion, my religion can quite happily pootle along sans too much interference.

I am confused basically! I've been going through a period of re-evaluating what I believe,coming from a christian background,but I'm not sure where I've ended up.Either somewhere between the first two,or in the last,according to what sort of day I'm having!

I find it interesting though,because the overwhelming opinion here seems to be organised religion =anti-women.I can see why,but I didn't experience it as anti me,or anti feminist when I was there(and I was feminist then). I'm sure some of that was that I didn't always register what was going on,but I also think that looking at the public face of organised religion doesn't always give a good picture of what it is like for individual members of the religion,or what they actually believe!

Why does secular feminist include those who want to separate state and religion with those who have no religious belief? That seems a bit odd.I was C of E,and I felt strongly that church and state should be separated - because I didn't think the secular state should have a say in the affairs of the church....

Hi Treacle! I liked this statement,
"One of the things that puts me off, however, is the lack of women in the church generally"
My experience was that churches were choc full of women,except at the very top! And I do remember lack of men being looked on as a specific problem...

Pogleswood - secularism is not actually the same as atheism. People who have secular opinions want religion to be separate from the state ie to be a private, personal matter - this doesn't always mean they themselves do not practise some form of religion.

I;m a hardline atheist and think that organised religions, especailly the abrahamic ones, are inherently misogynistic. The most benign definition of religion I have ever encountered is that it's the stories human beings tell themselves, those which resonate and matter, and certainly all religions have core stories which are basically about the cyclical nature of existence and about not wanting to accept that when you die, that;s it, game over. However a lot of the core stories are not all that benign really, being heavy on the misogyny and social control.
IN individuals, a wish to believe in imaginary friends and invisible worlds etc can be fairly harmless - otherwise nice people use their imaginary friends as encouragement to do nice things. Not so nice people use their imaginary friends in order to coerce other people/enrich themselves at other people's expense.

Of the options here I am probably a religious revisionist - I think organised religion is potentially good but needs a lot of revising - I'm a non-conformist in that I am not a member of any state religion - I'm a member of a Baptist church - and I would love to see far more speration of church and state.

I used to be very evangelical - that has now changed and I am more of a liberal CHristian, but Christian I am and can't see me being anything else!! Its too big a part of my life.

I am a Catholic, which is obviously a pretty difficult position for a feminist to be in (and a difficult position for anyone to be in now I should think), and I struggle with it a lot.

I am also a secularist though.

No,SGB,I know - the OP said "Secular feminists include those who want to separate religion from the state, and those who have abandoned religion and spirituality completely."
I was just trying to say that a grouping that includes people who practice a religion but want religion separate from the state with those who are not religious at all seems odd - it seems a strange place to put a dividing line,as I would expect those two groups to have different views.
Why not two different groups? Or am I missing something?
(I think I'm just being nit-picky here though - I'm not sure it really matters)

I am an atheist and can appreciate the point of religion for some, however I loathe liberation theology which seems to prey on the vulnerable in order to control them and force them to accept their poor poor lot.

I also struggle with being a feminist and religious and don't see where or how the two can work together.

I really don't know where I fit in my guess would be secular. I don't know enough about feminism yet though to properly classify myself! I do believe that the church and state should be separate, but then (like weegie) I come from a nonconformist background.

I think there's a good point about paganism not being anti-women. I'm not hugely knowledgeable on this but iirc, most of the old pagan religions focused on a 'mother goddess' figure, femininity was seen as the image of fertility. And in some cultures MEN were sacrificed to appease the mother/fertility goddess.

i think on balance I'll stay away from this thread though, as I could fall into a trap of just ranting about negative experiences of religion.

But you don't struggle with it posiep. Or did you previously have a religious faith?

My faith is irrational, I know that, but I still have it. I can't not have it. But my rational self is a scientist and a feminist, and there is the struggle.

Struggle with the idea, sorry. I just don't get how, mainly, Catholics, Muslims and Jews can claim to be feminists. Especially people that convert as adults. i think if you grow up with faith it can represent a whole lot of other stuff. But a feminist would, surely, not convert to Islam or Catholicism would they?

I would struggle to see how they could convert, you are right. And yes, I am a cradle catholic, and Waugh had it spot on with his "twitch upon the thread" description, for me at least. I know lots of lapsed Catholics (or atheists rather!). I don't know. You won't get any useful answers from me about combining the religion and feminism that's for sure. I am a very bad Catholic...

I don't see how a true feminist can accept the existence of religion per se. Religion can only be used to control people and has no bearing on feminist ideology.

They exclude one another surely?

(or have I just fallen into that trap?)